Discussion on:

Don't be misled by these 10 Windows Vista myths

http://gizmodo.com/gadgets/nvidia/pissed-off-gamers-ready-to-sue-nvidia-over-crap-vista-drivers-234718.php

According to what I have read so far about the Vista. Microsoft will not allow anything that can capture or stream video to run on Vista. In other words no tv tuner/capture cards or making your own personal DVR.

You can always think Microsoft and the Movie/Music industry for there nice kind way of calling everyone a thief.

Google it, there are tons of cards and drivers that work with Vista to do just this.

More FUD!

do they sell Vista machines with built in TV Tuner cards????

After making this statement:
'According to Nvidia, there will be no Vista drivers released for this card, thus it is not compatible with Vista.'

Why this statement would then be false:
'Why is it that such a new piece of hardware is suddenly rendered useless because of Vista??'

You said, "Why is it that such a new piece of hardware is suddenly rendered useless because of Vista?"

Easy answer. Nvidia isn't making a driver for it. Now wasn't that simple?

You should re-phrase your statement to read, "Why is it that such a new piece of hardware is suddenly rendered useless because of Nvidia?"

Let's face it, everyone accuses MS of making too much $ off of their customers. Maybe, just maybe, that same argument could be used against Nvidia. That thought ever cross your mind?

Nvidia could easily make a driver for that card for Vista. Have you asked them to specify a reason? I have a feeling the reason is simple and management related.

They did a cost/benefit analysis and just said essentially screw it. The cost of rewriting the new driver for Vista isn't worth the rewards of good customer service, etc that they would get.

It's easier to "force" an owner of that video card to just buy a new one and it puts even more money in Nvidia's pocket. And they know everyone will since even decent video cards are relatively inexpensive nowadays.

And we know that however pissed off those customers get, Nvidia makes some of the best cards and those customers will come back to the well one day.

Simple answer wasn't it?

I'm on your side...I was just pointing out to him that his MS bashing statement contradicted itself, but I wanted him to have to think about it.;)

.
I'll bet that the 2006 NVIDIA TV card cannot support the new hardware-based video DRM requirements that Vista requires. In order to play DRM-controlled video, which is CENTRAL to the new Media Center in Vista, a video card must support ENCRYPTED video coming across the PCI bus. Therefore, there is no point in NVIDIA trying to write a driver for it because it simply cannot be done.

Therefore, it is STILL Microsoft's fault!!

I seriously doubt that a 2006 video card is being deserted by NVIDIA without a reason like this. But, this is only a wild guess.

It's easy to blame Microsoft, because it's probably justified, isn't it?

It's just like "Plays For Sure" digital music. But, oops! Zune does not support "Plays For Sure" music. Sorry...You're just "Screwed For Sure".

And this is basically the gist of what I posted. That Vista is not quite ready for prime time unless you are running a very rudimentary system. Driver support is just not there yet. Is this MS' fault? It is arguable because vendors have had plenty of time to ready drivers for their products for Vista release. But, has MS cooperated as fully as it could have? Could all parties been a bit more proactive about having drivers ready? As I stated; I will wait awhile before upgrading, or will put it on a test box that I don't rely on for everyday stuff. Like gaming.

I think there is a lot of playing politics here.

MS probably doesn't cooperate as much as they could but then again, why should they. Company after company after company snubs their nose at them time and time again. Take Symantec and access to the kernel as an example.

And the manufacturers of parts probably don't cooperate as much as they could either.

There is so much to gain financially here.

This is like watching two 5 year olds arguing. Or maybe more appropriate, like two politicians running for office. Can't get a straight answer out of either one, both sides play fast and loose with the facts, and at the end of the day both sides are just as guilty and sleazy as the other.

I don't know what the answer is. But too many people on here hate MS so much that they automatically assume or blame MS for virtually everything. Life isn't that simple.

.
"...It is arguable because vendors have had plenty of time to ready drivers for their products for Vista release..."

Even though Vista was being developed by MICROSOFT since 2001, the design has been changed A WHOLE LOT over this period. For example, if your product required WinFS, you're screwed! That huge feature was completely removed in August 2004. I first saw the "object file system" (now called WinFS) back in the mid-1990s! That thing has been around for over a decade and has never been released.

IHVs and ISVs have not really had all that time to develop things. And, unlike Microsoft, they cannot AFFORD to develop continuously for six years without releasing and SELLING anything.

Furthermore, if Microsoft wants an IHV to develop and test hardware and software for a major operating system upgrade like Vista, Microsoft needs to provide a stable functionally complete system for a sufficient period of time. That was not done until the RC1 release in September 2006!! Prior to that, Vista beta releases were quite INCOMPLETE and BUGGY. That is not enough time.

So, I don't blame IHVs and ISVs for not being ready. I blame Microsoft 100% for the entire problem. Microsoft blew it in 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, and in 2006. Then, they rushed out a deeply feature cut "Vista" at the very end of the year with this outrageously stupid "release in November and again in January" baloney. How many business customers do you think really took advantage of that November release? Why did Microsoft do it? I think it was all about public relations...customers and investors losing patience.

What absurd nonsense. It is no surprise that Vista is where it is today.

Microsoft:

- Does not meet their own deadlines (or even come close).

- Does not meet their own feature sets.

- Encourages "partners" to develop stuff for the platform. If they fail, no problem. But, if they succeed, Microsoft then builds a product of their own that directly competes with them, and tries to run them out of their own business. Example: Adobe PDF is now in direct competition with XPS. PDF is a great application. It was not necessary for Microsoft to directly compete with it.

- Is not a company that ANYBODY should EVER partner with on ANYTHING.

Oh my god! Are you kidding me?

Adobe PDF, that's what you call it and I'm assuming you mean the whole line from Reader to Writer to the file format itself, is pathetic.

Slow, resource consuming, etc. And you can't just blame MS for trying to compete against the PDF line.

Their are tons of 3rd parties out there that do that and do it well as well as open source.

Give me a break. Defending Adobe's PDF line is like defending Symantec. What planet do you live on?

Adobe has gotten just as fat, lazy and stupid when it comes to the PDF line as MS has supposedly with their OS's.

.
Adobe's PDF product line (Acrobat and Reader) is a fine product. I don't agree with your assertion. But, even if you're right, the point was about Microsoft being a bad partner. Your "red herring" counter-argument is an irrelevant diversion from the point. Talking about software bloat diverts from my point about partnering that, I'm guessing, you really cannot defend.

The "red herring argument" is a dishonest debate tactic that people use when they cannot successfully argue against the real topic. Like the "Jedi Mind Trick", it only works on the weak minded.

You lose, Jedi Youngling Padewan learner. Try again?

is when they come to stab you in the back, they often miss.
Don't rely on them screwing up every time though. Shoot them first, wear armour and don't sit with your back to a door.

Very simple who ever makes the change?
If it was produced before vista
And worked on XP
Vista is an upgrade of XP
Therefore MS is at fault
Simple logic

The truth is, that NVIDIA fell asleep at the wheel. There are now drivers for all of there cards sold in the last 5 years. Goto their website and see for yourself.

If you aren't getting all the features on your existing hardware, then it was a waste of money to get the new version of windows.

While I agree the new UI features aren't needed for business use, if you spent the money for the os, you should be able to use all the features ON EXISTING hardware, or else you have been ripped off or need to replace the hardware.
This means that you need more ram and better viseo card, just for the UI features to work right. not a good thing for MS to do to customers.

I just downloaded a trial version of server 2003 for testing linux desktp authentication on AD server, and on hardware that has far more software running on it in linux, server 2003 with nothing but the os, no roles added, is slower than molasses in january, yet linux, with multiple servers running, multiple services running, is screaming fast on the hardware. If Vista is even close to server 2k3 in performance, no-one will be happy without replacing the hardware completely.
[ dual core AM2 3800+ 64 bit system is fast with linux, slow with server 2k3 ]

You are getting all the features that your current hardware supports... And all the features are available ON EXISTING (just because you dont have it, doesn't mean it hasn't been invented) hardware as well. You are making an OS that's supposed to last for 5 years AT LEAST, so i think that using the lowest common denominator isn't the wise thing to do (regarding graphical interfaces...) Most of the graphical effects provided in VISTA can be achieved in XP using software, so i think that the main reason to upgrade is not the gui but the new features (search,more secure on paper at least, etc). Summing it up, dont want the new interface, buy home basic.

Why would I want to pay so much for such a crippled OS?

What do you REALLY lose if you're upgrading from XP Home to Home basic? Eye Candy.

Xp Home doesn't have Aero Glass, so no loss there.

Xp Home doesn't have built in DVD maker, so no loss there.

XP Home doesn't have Media Center, so no loss there.

If you're running XP home you probably won't be missing Tablet PC functions.

The only thing missing between XP Home and Vista Home basic is Windows Movie Maker.

I've used Vista with both Aero and Basic interfaces. They eye candy is nice to have, but the guts of what makes vista better is still there.

I disable the exact same ui features in KDE, and HAVE BEEN DOING SO for 2 years.

http://techrepublic.com.com/5208-6230-0.html?forumID=102&threadID=210518&messageID=2166593

I don't want the ui features, but then I would never buy MS anyway.

heck, comparing performance of server 2003 against linux, on the same hardware should have been a clue I use linux not windows.

but if you are buying vista, you should be able to use ALL new features, or the os was not written right.
If you need to change a single piece of hardware to get all the new features working, then it does not run on existing hardware.

and yes, linux has had the aero glass style ui features for two years, and it's available with bare bones older systems, no fancy graphics card required.
no massive ram required
no GHz cpu required.
[ try 233 MHz pII cpu to get it. ]

edited to add link

I think you dont get it... The OS has made to be scalable. Not everybody has the same hardware. Can you run linux "Aero" (never seen it) on a 16 color video card? Doubt it... You want the effects, you need to have the adequate hardware.

I don't think that the OS was not coded right... Its just not possible to get all the eye candy in a decent resolution while mantaining good perfomance, without doing the graphics operations on hardware. Not even Linux is able to.

Have you even seen Vista running in a decent machine? I have SUSE installed in one machine at home, and i think it's beautiful. But cannot be compared to Vista.

never seen vista running, and never will.

since KDE has the aero glass features, and has had for three years, I know what transparent borders, menus, taskbars etc look like, and I have no use for it.
[ btw, it runs perfectly fine using those features on an amd k6 @ 600mhz with 128mb sdram, ob non accelerated graphics adapter, so it's barely capable of 1024 by 768 @ 16 bits. ]

check PClinuxOS, that is their default ui config. all i386 [ since it's a merging of Mandriva front end and Debian backend, it will use Debian's default i386 binaries. ]

Mandriva 2005, 2006 and 2007 have all had portions of the aero glass style features enabled by default, I turn them off within seconds of starting to configure the ui when I check the latest releases.

try the vista transformation pak on the "Major geeks" website works fine in all my systems (areo glass included) ranging from 550mhz with 256ram to a 2.5 with 1.25 gig ram best of all cost is free!!

It is nice, I've been running it on XP Pro for about 6 months now, but it is only a first baby step. It doesn't even come close to the real features in Vista.

I installed it and like it, however, my purpose was more along the lines of just to start getting myself used to the new look and feel of Vista.

I've got XGL running on a Geforce somethingother MX, 512 mb RAM, and a 1.5ghz proc.

Vista will NOT run Aero with those specs. Hell, Vista barely runs Aero on a 2.8ghz, 1gb RAM, 128mb X600 machine.

Ya, MS bloated that sucker up and XGL proves it (years earlier I might add)

Is already 2-3 years old.

It's a 2.4 Ghz processor, with 1 GB RAM, and a Radeon 9200 video card (PCI) with only 128 MB memory. Nothing special.

I got Aero to work just fine.

As far as having to upgrade hardware...

How far back do you want MS to support old hardware? Should that Pentium III 500Mhz 128MB RAM 10GB HD PC be able to run Vista with full Aero Glass and all features?

I don't think it's really that unreasonable requiring a 128MB vid card and 1024MB of RAM for the Aero features. If you've bought a system in the past 2-3 years, you should really have bought those specs in the first place.

Otherwise, run Home Basic. Pretty easy.

As far as performance goes, every XP machine that i've upgraded to Vista so far (admittedly, only a couple) have been pretty impressive as far as performance goes. They're at least as fast as the XP installation was, and as far as my notebook goes, faster.

Server '03 is only the codebase for Vista, it's really not that great of a comparison past that, though, as Server '03 has a whole bunch of services running that Vista wouldn't even consider, as it's a desktop client, not a server OS.

don't run any version of windows
like me, go all linux and tell MS thay can't have money, until they release something worth using.

no version of ms windows, and no version of ms office are worth using.

I'm going to have to heavily disagree with you on the Office statement. Office 2007 is probably the best office suite i've seen. Hell, 2003 wasn't all that bad.

Some of the things you can do with '07 now, and the speed that you can do them have no comparison. None.

An average user can put together professional quality documents pretty easily now. And the new interface, though it took a bit for me to get used to, is one of, if not the best UI advancement in recent years.

There simply isn't a comparison.

Now, as far as the OS goes, it's all opinion. I think Linux has come ridiculously far over the years and is a great OS. Would I start selling PCs with it installed by default for my walk-in customers? Hell no.

Linux still just isn't ready for mass consumer consumption.

Now, have I put Ubuntu on a PC for one of my customers who wanted to just go online and nothing else? Yes. Would I do it for a customer who intended to someday buy off-the-shelf apps and install off-the-shelf hardware and not want to recompile or have to research hardware compatibility? No.

Reality is: 85-90% of the installed base is Windows, Mac will never get over 10-15% unless they un-tie MacOS from their hardware, and Linux still has a way to go to be a mass consumer OS.

So, why isn't Linux ready? What's holding it back?

As for Office 2007, it stinks on ice. I'm not going to fight with the ribbon interface and it offers nothing new or more robust than 2003.

Usability.

I've got customers who have a hard enough time with turning their PCs on, much less having to navigate RPM installers, dependencies, re-compiling, etc.

Yes, the UI is (thankfully) not an issue anymore for the large part thanks to GNOME, KDE, etc. but your average consumer at this point will get a headache having to deal with just normal software installation.

Not to mention the fact that if they don't have internet access they're boned completely, or they'll have to get to one of their 9 distro disks.

When I can honestly sell a PC running linux and the experience for a new casual user is up to par with Windows, it'll be ready for mass consumer consumption.

Until then, it'll be what it has been and still is: A great OS, primarily used by techs, geeks, and nerds (like us) which is highly customizable, very stable, but with a big learning curve.

If you don't think 2007 has anything significant over 2003, you haven't used it. A casual user can make print-shop graphic design quality items pretty easily. Not only that, but the ribbon has made it much easier to use.

The hypocrisy of the linux zealot crowd is amusing these days. All I ever heard was "try linux or you can't criticize it, and you'll never go back." Well, i've used it, it's been a nice project to tinker with and it's helped me get much more familiar with Unix than I was before, but guess what. I still primarily use Windows.

So it's my turn: Honestly try Office 2007. You'll like it. Otherwise, you have nothing to say until you try it.

Don't you love turning their own arguments around and using them against them? They can't handle it.

You Windows zealots need a new scriptwriter. What's most sad about you is that you nod your head in agreement, as if what the puppeted was something fresh and original rather than the same old, threadbare, hasn't-been-true-in-years crap about Linux being hard, blah blah blah. If you guys were talking about cars, you'd stick with the carburetored cars were better because those newfangled fuel-injected thingies were just too confusing.

What drives you Windows zealots? Is it some Pavlovian "Say Linux is hard, receive food pellet" reflex? But, hey, maybe that sort of thing works for you. For myself, however, I would prefer not to stay inside a cage because the rest of the rats in it say "Be afraid! The rest of the world is big and scary!" Especially when the cage is $299, periodically shocks me because it is poorly grounded, and regularly calls the head rat to tell them it has the "Genuine Cage Advantage" (and shuts off the food supply if the cage doesn't respond correctly for some reason).

Dependencies are a non-issues because now there are simple to use GUI based installers that use mirrors and resolve everything for you magically.

The only 9 disk distro I know of is Debian. Fedora is 5 CDs or 1 DVD. Ubuntu is 1 CD. SuSe is 1 DVD.

The ribbon makes Office easier to use? Man, are you an ad campaign? I've tried 2k7 and I hated it. Not only are silly things not on the ribbon by default (save as... for one), but the interface is irritating.

I ordered by mail the latest at the time which I think is actually now the second newest version of Ubuntu a few months ago.

It came on 6 CD's, thanks.

Sure, I realize that the OS probably is on just the first one, but it begs the question then, what the hell is on the next 5 CD's? Bloat?

You Linux zealots need a new scriptwriter.

How many times do I have to hear "free, as in beer"? Blah, blah, blah. Linux zealots overuse certain phrases just as often, please.

And thank you very much for the car example. Totally wrong, but nice try.

Our latest family car was a brand new 2006 Chrysler mini-van. Came in at just over $33,000 and has all the lastest bells and whistles: 6 disc CD changer, DVD player, pop down LCD TV, heated seats, leather throughout, stow and go storage, rear heat and AC, 8 speaker system, GPS, etc etc etc.

But since you are only in Technical/PC Support as your profile says, I doubt you could afford something so nice and something so technologically advanced and have 4 kids, a new house, etc. Hard to stretch that paycheck of yours that far, huh?

Your cage made of Linux is just as bad. You're trapped inside because you can't go to the store and buy or download the same software that all your buddies are using, your games selection is severely limited, the market for your job skills limited, and there is no head rat to call home when you have trouble just a bunch of unorganized sewer rats that all think they are better than the next guy because they know how to use the CLI.

Obviously, it's only the vast Windows conspiracy that is keeping linux at its small market share.

It's a huge conspiracy, that's it. It has nothing to do with any shortcomings (fictional as they are) with the OS as far as usability, learning curve, compatibility, etc.

It's the MS Men in Black.

You know guys, goin' on ten years later, you really should start to realize there's a reason it's not more thoroughly adopted. More reasonable linux folk have looked inwards and made improvements.

Other, less reasonable folk just lash out at everyone else and call them stupid.

Who are in this thread?

I have a few good reasons (that I think at least).

1. Linux hype, many people have tried linux after big hypes were made, and linux was not ready for that yet. People like myself tried it, got frustrated, and reformatted.

2. Windows, everyone knows how to do something in Windows, so why change?

3. Support files for Linux are often hard to read, or hard to find. It is getting better though

4. Installing SW, each distro has its own installer or need to compile

5. SW packages (partly due to #4) many SW vendors do not make packages for Linux.

I think that these are the main reasons that are holding back Linux. But, with some of the newest and easier to use distros now, Linux does have a good chance to move forward a bit. If more techs knew how to use and be able to perform basic troubleshooting in Linux, then more people would try it out again.

Rickk, your question has been answered many times in many different forums right here, so you can't claim ignorance. However, since you have a short memory, here's what's on those CD's:

OpenOffice (Did Windows come with Office? Nope. You have to buy extra CD's for that.)

gl-117 (Did Windows come with IL-2 Sturmovik? Nope. You have to buy those CD's separately.)

Lincity, FreeCiv, etc. (Did Windows come with SimCity or Civilization. Nope...)

The GIMP (Did Windows come with Photoshop? Nope, blah blah blah...)

I'm not going to list the other 17,000 applications that didn't come on your Windows discs but did come with Ubuntu.

And, the most important part here, is that you don't have to install anything you don't want to. Don't want a browser? Don't install one. Don't want a media player? Don't install one. Don't want foo? Don't install foo. You can't not install Internet Explorer in Windows.

You can fit an entire Linux distribution on a 64MB jump drive. Feel free to google "jump drive linux" if you don't believe me.

Optional != bloat. Required = bloat. That's the difference, and stop acting like you didn't know that already.

Hey, finally we can agree on some things.

All your points were pretty valid. Hit the nail on the head.

Once the Linux fanboys wake up and smell the coffee and stop exclusively working on making Linux technically superior and starting working on education, the user experience, marketing, etc maybe just maybe Linux will have a shot.

But until then, Linux (while a good alternative with lots of potential) will never reach critical mass.

Hey, let's face it, as much as many people hate Bill Gates and Microsoft, probably the single biggest thing he did was help to make the OS user friendly and essentially a commodity where the applications are more important than the OS.

Kind of reminds one of Henry Ford. Mass produce, lower the price, create standards and make it a neccesity in life instead of a toy or luxury.

Add to that the lower prices of software and hardware, and Bill Gates/MS/a few other companies brought the PC out of the geek's basement and put it in almost everyone's household.

I can fit Windows PE or Bart PE on a thumbdrive or a CD. What's your point?

And in case you haven't noticed, two things. One, just how many people you know use their PC exclusively with Linux and only use a thumbdrive OS? All the major Linux distros with anything of value installed are several gigs just like Windows.

Two, who cares what fits on a thumbdrive? Nowadays as thumbdrive are getting bigger and bigger, that argument will be taken away from you. I can buy a 4 GB thumbdrive for under a $100 and fit a stripped down version of Windows on it. Because that's exactly what you're talking about here...a stripped down version of Linux that people only use for specific purposes and NOT as a everyday PC.

NT

First you complain about Ubuntu coming on 6 CD's, then you say you don't care how small it is. Make up your mind.

WTF? I think this was in reference to nighthawks statement. But since I was dragged into it.
Thumbdrive Linux or cd Linux can be good for training. Thumbdrive Linux is better in that you can install apps and save items. Look at some of the options available including office, FF, and others that can be installed on a thumbdrive. Also, these OS's can be booted and used on different ssytems While saving your settings and preferences on multiple computers. Great for a tavelling geek in my opinion.

http://www.usatoday.com/tech/columnist/kimkomando/2006-06-01-thumb-drive_x.htm

just to throw a link in there.
and I have used the portable FF and it works very well.

Yes, I think that we do agree on several things. Including what MS has brought to our everyday lives.
But you forgot to mention all of the hair pulling from things like (STOP:0x0000001A, DR Watson, automatic updates, etc.). -- lol

"Once the Linux fanboys wake up and smell the coffee and stop exclusively working on making Linux technically superior and starting working on education, the user experience, marketing, etc maybe just maybe Linux will have a shot."

I'm sorry, did you just admit Linux was technically superior to MS OSes? You are correct there.

As for user education the major distros provide education as well as various third parties.

I'm not sure what you want for the user experience, but XGL is far superior to Aero Glass.

The marketing comment is total tripe. SuSe and Redhat dump TONS of money into marketing. Perhaps you don't read any trade pubs or ever crack open the Wall Street Journal.

"But until then, Linux (while a good alternative with lots of potential) will never reach critical mass."

Because you say so?

"Hey, let's face it, as much as many people hate Bill Gates and Microsoft, probably the single biggest thing he did was help to make the OS user friendly and essentially a commodity where the applications are more important than the OS."

MS OSes friendly? Everyone on the planet knows what a BSoD is. Everyone gets the "in" IT jokes about Windows now and even better the recent DNS attacks were because Bill make his OS so friendly. Thanks MS!

"Kind of reminds one of Henry Ford. Mass produce, lower the price, create standards and make it a neccesity in life instead of a toy or luxury."

If that was true the Model T would break down every 2 miles, run through gas faster than any other car, and require you to get a larger engine every time you got new tires.

That must piss off Steve Jobs every time he sees someone say that. After all, Apple was the one who went to all the trouble of stealing Xerox PARC's technology, and then they don't even get credit for being the ones who brought it to market.

Linux is here for the long haul. Keeps getting better with each kernel release.

Simply type "apt-get install abiword" then hit enter. What could be easier? I see no headache here!